Common Sense Deactivated?

[shunyadragon]

You're correct with H2O. That was my own mistake and didn't correctly proof read my post. Two hydrogen H2 and oxygen O. A bit red-faced for it, but it is what it is. *Grin*

Atoms cannot change from one element to another but they can be split with immense energy, but understand even though they can be split apart into two, they can also be recombined back together yet the elemental makeup of that atom will never change. What makes atoms interesting is the atomic shell that makes the elements unique in how they combine and split apart from atom to atom and the molecules that are formed that makes everything we see and are.

I don't see how in the world a creator can fit into this just because we don't know the origin of atoms other than from the intense pressures in conditions inside stars from where the elements emerge.

Why in the world would anybody think that atoms themselves are a type of proof for a creator? They can already be manipulated through science and we know a lot more about the atom then we had decades and centuries ago.

There's nothing so far that indicate any kind of intelligent design or direction is present.

The only thing I will correct here is atoms do change from one element to another in several ways. (1) By radioactive decay elements can transmute to other elements of lower atomic number. (2) Heavier elements transmute to other elements in the intense heat and pressure of supernovas. and lighter elements in the interior heat of suns. The heavier elements in the periodic table that do not occur in nature are artificially transmuted elements by laboratory procedures.

It is possible that scientist can transmute more different elements in recent years, but at great cost.

From: Nuclear transmutation - Wikipedia
"Nuclear transmutation is the conversion of one chemical element or an isotope into another chemical element[1]. Because any element (or isotope of one) is defined by its number of protons (and neutrons) in its atoms, i.e. in the atomic nucleus, nuclear transmutation occurs in any process where the number of protons or neutrons in the nucleus is changed.

A transmutation can be achieved either by nuclear reactions (in which an outside particle reacts with a nucleus) or by radioactive decay, where no outside cause is needed.

Natural transmutation by stellar nucleosynthesis in the past created most of the heavier chemical elements in the known existing universe, and continues to take place to this day, creating the vast majority of the most common elements in the universe, including helium, oxygen and carbon. Most stars carry out transmutation through fusion reactions involving Hydrogen and helium, while much larger stars are also capable of fusing heavier elements up to iron late in their evolution.

Elements heavier than iron, such as gold and lead, are created through elemental transmutations that can only take place in supernovae - as stars begin to fuse heavier elements, substantially less energy is released from each fusion reaction, and each fusion reaction that produces elements heavier than iron is endothermic in nature, and stars are incapable of carrying this out.

One type of natural transmutation observable in the present occurs when certain radioactive elements present in nature spontaneously decay by a process that causes transmutation, such as alpha or beta decay. An example is the natural decay of potassium-40 to argon-40, which forms most of the argon in the air. Also on Earth, natural transmutations from the different mechanisms of natural nuclear reactions occur, due to cosmic ray bombardment of elements (for example, to form carbon-14), and also occasionally from natural neutron bombardment (for example, see natural nuclear fission reactor).

Artificial transmutation may occur in machinery that has enough energy to cause changes in the nuclear structure of the elements. Such machines include particle accelerators and tokamak reactors. Conventional fission power reactors also cause artificial transmutation, not from the power of the machine, but by exposing elements to neutrons produced by fission from an artificially produced nuclear chain reaction. For instance, when a uranium atom is bombarded with slow neutrons, fission takes place. This releases, on average, 3 neutrons and a large amount of energy. The released neutrons then cause fission of other uranium atoms, until all of the available uranium is exhausted. This is called a chain reaction."

 

[Twilight Hue]

The only thing I will correct here is atoms do change from one element to another in several ways. (1) By radioactive decay elements can transmute to other elements of lower atomic number. (2) elements transmute to other elements in the intense heat and pressure of supernovas. and the interior heat of some suns. The heavier elements in the periodic table that do not occur in nature are artificially transmuted elements by laboratory procedures.

It is possible in the future that scientist may transmute more different elements.

That's true. Nuclear transmutation. Something that I didn't even think of or had considered.

Atoms and Elements

Wither a person believes atoms were intelligently created or not, atoms are an extremely fascinating study.

I have to admit it's quite a rabbit hole that made this Wonderland we presently live in. :0)

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

I've already made my points about being gullible.

Have you read that book? Second, have you read the reviews on that book? I've read the reviews and decided it wasn't worth the time. I did watch his debate with William Lane Craig and he discusses the same things. He lost the debate.

Here's the review I read about that book.

Is Lawrence Krauss a Physicist, or Just a Bad Philosopher?

Thus, common sense and Newtonian (classical) physics tells me that a universe or a bottle of pop can't come from nothing.

Okay. So you don't like Lawrence Krauss. That doesn't mean his explanation is incorrect. His theory has just as much evidence right now as for a creator. And by the way, yes I have read the book and seen the lecture the book is based on.

But you haven't answered the main problem I posted earlier. The question about where something else came from. I would love to know your "common sense" explanation of that.

 

[shunyadragon]

Okay. So you don't like Lawrence Krauss. That doesn't mean his explanation is incorrect. His theory has just as much evidence right now as for a creator. And by the way, yes I have read the book and seen the lecture the book is based on.

But you haven't answered the main problem I posted earlier. The question about where something else came from. I would love to know your "common sense" explanation of that.

Actually, Krauss give probably the most readable concise description of contemporary Physics and Cosmology as any contemporary Physicists. Yes I have read his book.

Is Lawrence Krauss a Physicist, or Just a Bad Philosopher?

Thus, common sense and Newtonian (classical) physics tells me that a universe or a bottle of pop can't come from nothing.

The problem with @james bond's objection is he is appealing to Newtonian Physics for an explanation of what Krauss refers to as the Quantum 'nothing,' which is not the philosophical nothing of theologians. Of course nothing comes from absolute nothing, but the nothing of physics is Quantum Mechanics nothing that is indeed 'something' based on the concept of Quantum zero point energy and Quantum gravity where energy exists as potential energy.

I do not agree with the confusing terminology used by Krauss and others when trying to describe the physics of Quantum Mechanics, but it is what it is.

 

[Deeje]

Science can estimate the age of the universe indirectly based o uranium half-life, but they cannot go beyond that and 'know.' Also our universe may be part of a multiverse, or that it may be a cyclic universe.

Or maybe there is a power 'out there' beyond anything that puny human intellect can even comprehend?
Does your "maybe" have more evidence than my "maybe"? That's the thing with "belief" systems....since there is no "proof" for either, we can choose which one appeals to us for whatever reason. I don't hold evolutionary science in high esteem because it offers no answers for the big questions. If this is all just one monumental accident, then where will it all end. The Bible gives me a beginning, a middle and an end. Its been spot on so far so why should I doubt it, or swap it for pie in the sky?

Science cannot make that assumption come to the conclusion to 'know' that our 'physical existence' has a beginning or not, because of the lack of information. Scientists realize that the cataclysmic event, if it happened, can have a very natural origin from a prior existing natural existence.

Yet it never allows that 'lack of information' to get in the way of claiming that its findings are all to be accepted as facts, especially in the minds of children, indoctrinated well before they ever reach college age. The original video is proof of that. It was very apparent that these kids had no idea how to defend their own "beliefs". Why were they all proudly atheists? Why did they squirm under his simple questioning?
If evolutionists can't defend what they believe, then they have no business claiming to believe it. Its just hot air. If they have no more real evidence than their opponents, then why do they act like they do? I think we know.

Please define the word "natural" because you seem to be inferring that it is much the same as 'magic'.....something that happens with no explanation other than it was....."natural"......

Explain life coming into existence as something "natural".

Despite that fact that science knows from its own experiments that "life always comes from pre-existing life"....abiogenesis is the exception. No proof...just an assertion that there is one exception to that rule. That does not sound like science to me...it sounds more like wishful thinking.

 

[Deeje]

See, it's statements like your last that cause issue; they're just unfoundable. For example, did you know that most polytheists don't deny your god's existence? He's just not our god, just as my gods aren't the gods of a Hellenist. So say I meet your god... so what? How does that prove that he's the one who created hand-perfect bananas? How does it prove that he's anything more than a Canaanite sky god?

If there are many gods, you are left to ponder why there are many, and like with any group of conscious beings, they have to have hierarchy. Without order there is chaos.....universal chaos is not apparent, in fact quite the opposite. Precise laws govern everything in the universe.

How are things subject to laws if there is no lawmaker? A law that governs an action and an outcome has to have intelligence behind it. Laws always serve a purpose and where there is purpose, there is intent. Intent denotes planning and planning needs intelligence. That is logical to me.

Bully for you, but you do understand that evidence is practically useless to other people, yes?

The God of the Bible, who claims to be the Creator of all things (are there any other gods who claim this?) is the one with all the answers. He is the one with a purpose to all that he has made. If people are interested in getting to know him, he will introduce himself, and explain everything to them, opening up their powers of comprehension to understand his purpose....but if they want to serve other gods, then he will step back and allow them that freedom. He is the reader of hearts and can draw to himself those who exhibit the right characteristics and qualities that he is looking for when choosing the citizens for his kingdom. This is what is in the Bible.

No, he asked loaded questions that we've all heard before.

When handling anything that is "loaded", one runs the risk of it exploding in their face. The questions are loaded with simple logic....something science has skewed their way for the last couple of centuries. Time for a wakeup call IMO.

When you get right down to it, we all don't know; you don't know that your god created life, just as I don't know that my gods did. We believe.

Thank you...that has been my position all along. We have opposing belief systems...only one claims that it has facts. We know that it has suggestion and conjecture and lots of wishful thinking...but no real facts.

And even then, you're left with the massive problem of which god created life. How do you prove that it was yours?

Once you meet the true God, you realize that the others are just made up. They aren't real...they can't speak, and they do not interact with the human race at all. What good are they really? Tell me what they do for you personally....?

I would say that it's a matter of physics, just like leaving a water bottle in the sun will develop condensation on the inside that evaporates and falls.

There needs to be moisture in the bottle first though. Moisture doesn't pop up out of nowhere. Water can exist in three forms. Solid (frozen) liquid (water) or gas (water vapor)...its all water but unless there was one of those in your bottle, no amount of leaving a bottle in the sun will produce water.....but you knew that, right?

How does that prove your god?

My God proves himself by being an amazing designer. Complex systems exist in nature and in our own bodies. These systems operate independently as well as interactively. So if I have a computer and it has many components....unless someone knew how to put those components together in the right sequence, (obviously requiring knowledge and intelligence) I will never have a working computer. If just one component is out of place, it foils the function of the whole machine. But even if I had all the components together in the right order....without power, it would still be useless.

If I wanted to use my computer to communicate with others computers all over the world, and I had my computer and the power working well...without an internet connection and other computers hooked up to the network, I am still not achieving my goal. None of that is a fluke.

"The book of life" is what scientists call the massive 'volume' containing the human genome sequence. Its a big book.
What makes evolutionary science think that all this complexity could be the result of a series of fortunate accidents? DNA demonstrates design and order in so many ways and in so many creatures in a perfectly functioning eco-system....which displays clever recycling abilities....there are self-sustaining and self-replicating programs installed in each creature......all designed to ensure that the abundant lifeforms on this planet will continue to replace themselves by continually adapting to changing environments and food sources as they have been doing since they were put here.

That's the way I see things from my own logic. Science's explanation makes no sense at all to me.....and it has no way to prove that what it believes about life on this planet is even possible.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

If there are many gods, you are left to ponder why there are many,

Not really. In fact to me, it makes more sense--but this is really dodging the issue, you know.

How does Ray's little banana argument actually prove anything past trite "gotcha!" attempts?

The God of the Bible, who claims to be the Creator of all things (are there any other gods who claim this?)

Yes, there are. And no, your god doesn't have all the answers. You believe he does, but that's hardly evidence. I'll take this that you don't acknowledge or understand that the "evidence" that has convinced you is useless to others.

When handling anything that is "loaded", one runs the risk of it exploding in their face.

As Ray Comfort faces with using an example that's been engineered by humans. Or that faces the (evidently difficult) counter-question of polytheism. It is time for a wake-up call, but your lot is the one that needs it the most. Time to stop making silly claims, or trying to win people over to your way of thinking as though you know what they need better than themselves.

Thank you...that has been my position all along.

No, I don't think it is. Because even here you're talking about how your holy book has all the answers. You're touting Ray's little metaphors as undeniable evidence and logic for your god, staking the obvious claim that he's the source of everything as though it's fact. Yet for all you really know, everything was created by a super-advanced race of aliens that could shape matter and life as they willed.

Once you meet the true God,

See? Here you go on about "true god". You're also really avoiding answering the question of how you prove that it's your god.

They aren't real...they can't speak, and they do not interact with the human race at all. What good are they really? Tell me what they do for you personally....?

This is really a foolish claim, even for you.

Do you know what the name "Thor" means? It means "The Thunderer". Thor speaks with every storm that sweeps across the plains, and even one with ears so stuffed with psalms can hear it. Freyr - "the fertile" - makes for the crops to grow with every impregnating rain shower. Huginn and Muninn - "though" and "the will to live" - fly forward from the mind of every being. The gods that I worship do much for all, even those that don't believe in them.

Without the pages of your holy book, how can your god really be known?

There needs to be moisture in the bottle first though.

Yes there would. How do you prove your god put it there? You're very bad at providing evidence, deeje.

My God proves himself by being an amazing designer.

How do any of the things that you list prove YOUR god?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Not just the supernatural and God, but they leave out the Bible as religion. This wasn't the way it was before the 1850s.

This is today's atheist science I am referring to. Just because something isn't testable nor falsifiable, it does not get excluded in creation science. It isn't part of the scientific method, but philosophy of science. Falsifiability or unfalsifiability (lack of falsifiability) does not mean that if an idea cannot be tested, then it is false

Who suggested it did? Personally, I think science has very little to do with God, nor with 'disproving' God. Methodological naturalism is literally leaving God and the supernatural at the door when conducting science. It's a method every bit as relevant and practical to a theist as to an atheist.

; It just means that an idea can't be tested for the time being. An example would be how everyone thought the planets revolved around earth until Copernicus came up with his heliocentric model and thus was able to test his ideas. We can include the concepts of multiverses, time travel back in time and finding aliens to this. I don't believe in any of those. Neither do I believe in being able to successfully colonize another planet (but this is testable); We'll become extinct on one planet.

There is perhaps a point you're trying to prove in this paragraph (above), but you're aiming it too broadly. Science is a way of expanding our knowledge. Anyone who thinks all knowledge ends with the boundaries of current science is severely misguided, an idiot, or a strawman.

The original idea of testing and falsifiability was proposed by GK Chesterton, but his intent wasn't what today's atheist scientists claim.

I would have to bow to your superior knowledge. I lack the confidence to speak on behalf of 'atheist scientists'.

"Science is weak about these prehistoric things in a way that has hardly been noticed. The science whose modern marvels we all admire succeeds by incessantly adding to its data. In all practical inventions, in most natural discoveries, it can always increase evidence by experiment. But it cannot experiment in making men; or even in watching to see what the first men make. An inventor can advance step by step in the construction of an aeroplane, even if he is only experimenting with sticks and scraps of metal in his own back-yard. But he cannot watch the Missing Link evolving in his own back-yard. If he has made a mistake in his calculations, the aeroplane will correct it by crashing to the ground. But if he has made a mistake about the arboreal habitat of his ancestor, he cannot see his arboreal ancestor falling off the tree. He cannot keep a cave-man like a cat in the back-yard and watch him to see whether he does really practice cannibalism or carry off his mate on the principles of marriage by capture. He cannot keep a tribe of primitive men like a pack of hounds and notice how far they are influenced by the herd instinct. If he sees a particular bird behave in a particular way, he can get other birds and see if they behave in that way; but if he finds a skull, or the scrap of a skull, in the hollow of a hill, he cannot multiply it into a vision of the valley of dry bones. In dealing with a past that has almost entirely perished, he can only go by evidence and not by experiment. And there is hardly enough evidence to be even evidential. Thus while most science moves in a sort of curve, being constantly corrected by new evidence, this science flies off into space in a straight line uncorrected by anything. But the habit of forming conclusions, as they can really be formed in more fruitful fields, is so fixed in the scientific mind that it cannot resist talking like this. It talks about the idea suggested by one scrap of bone as if it were something like the aeroplane which is constructed at last out of whole scrapheaps of scraps of metal. The trouble with the professor of the prehistoric is that he cannot scrap his scrap. The marvellous and triumphant aeroplane is made out of a hundred mistakes. The student of origins can only make one mistake and stick to it." G.K. Chesterton, Everlasting Man, II

This is an epically good argument for a God of the gaps.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I said I liked his questions....not necessarily his methods. I believe his questions were enough to wake some people up out of their complacency. That is all some people need to get them thinking along new lines. We are all better off having our beliefs challenged. It makes us want to validate them.....if they can't be validated, then perhaps its time to re-evaluate them.

Agreed. It's why I post crime statistics, when you talk about the world going to hell, and remind you about design faults in nature when you offer up the perfection of nature as proof of God. Just trying to help.

I didn't compare him to Jesus....I said I can imagine Jesus getting the same kind of negative wrap from the population whose beliefs he was challenging.

C'mon now. Richard Spencer also has issues from a population whose beliefs he is challenging. Want to compare Ray Comfort to him? No? Why Jesus then?

If any "Christian" claims to be able to explain the trinity from the Bible in any fashion, then they are lying. There is no trinity in the Bible.

You do, perhaps, see my point though. If I ask a young Christian about the trinity, and they can't provide a simple response, then atheism MUST be true, no? I mean, it's a simple question.

So 'evangelism' is OK with you as long as its for science? Just looks like a different belief system to me.

We tell people about God to save them, and science tells people there is no God to save them from the people who say there is...?

There have been plenty of influential Christian scientists. I'm sure they'd be shocked to realise science has disproven God.

That's like looking at a painting done by one of the Masters and asking how many artists there were. Or reading a novel by a well known author and asking how many writers produced the work? Bit insulting really.

Why? There are many different DNA strands in existence, just like a gallery is full of paintings, some of which may have been done by different painters, some by the same. Still, if you really must stick to your guns, consider this...

The master might paint only the central figures or simply the faces in a work—or he might not paint any of it at all. Students were trained to work in the master’s style and succeeded to such a degree that it is sometimes hard for today’s art historians to distinguish the hand of a master from that of his most talented pupils. Attributions of some paintings from the studio of Verrocchio, for example, have gone back and forth between the master and various assistants. The same confusion applies to works of Perugino (one of Verrocchio’s students) and his young assistant Raphael, and those of Giovanni Bellini’s students Giorgione and Titian. Although contracts sometimes specified that the master himself execute certain parts of a composition, guild rules allowed him to sign as his own any work that emerged from his shop. “Authenticity” in the modern sense was not at issue. A master’s signature was a sign that a work met his standards of quality, no matter who had actually painted it.

Source : Training and Practice

Pretty interested in your further thoughts on this, for obvious reasons.

Unfortunately, its often the bad teachers who leave an indelible scar on a child's character. Those who blame the kids for their terrible teaching ability. The child suffers for the teacher's failure. I don't care how knowledgeable anyone is about a subject, if they can't teach it, they should be sacked. No lousy teacher should be kept in a job.Its too important....a lot of damage can be done in a year.

That's just noise, though. As I said, I had both good and bad teachers. The good ones encouraged my curiosity, just as I did when I was a teacher. There are good and bad parents too. I strive to be a good one of those also. When you talk about teachers as a whole, you can't ignore me, nor those teachers I am saying were good. It's cheap to simply disparage all in a manner that suits your argument. At the same time, if you didn't experience good teachers, I'm sorry.

Kids these days get no other input for the most part. What are they to assume when so many in the scientific community openly disparage anything to do with religion or the Bible? Humans are undeniably spiritual, so at least some exposure to faith based beliefs should be permitted....just for the balance. Otherwise you set them up for intolerance. What accompanies faith is not all bad you know.

Like when I took my children to a Buddhist temple 2 months ago? Or spent an hour (okay, more like 40 minutes) teaching my youngest daughter about some different concepts of God today, since she's interested? Or should I only teach them about the Bible?

KISS is being able to explain something complex in a simple manner. If I go to a doctor and I am told I need complicated surgery, he will not sit down and explain it in medical terminology...he will use layman's terms and perhaps draw me a diagram of what he intends to do. Hopefully, at the end of the consultation, I will feel reassured in the understanding of what to expect. It can be in more than 2 sentences.

There is a concept called 'lies to children'. It's not actually about lying to children, per se, it's about dumbing things down to the point that they're actually not particularly accurate in order to give someone 'understanding' of them. Ask any sixth grader to explain a rainbow, and they'll tell you something, but it won't actually be accurate. Ask them to explain the colour blue, and that will apply, to an even higher degree, most likely. Perhaps there are times people are simply trying to provide as much information as they know, and not trying to dumb things down?

(Cont- in next post due to length, as this next part is VERY important, I think)

 

[lewisnotmiller]

(cont- from last post)

I have spoken to people with this disorder.....that is not the way I approach something. I have a sense of logic and we all have that unexplainable 'thing' inside us that tell us when a 'chord' is struck....it just rings true. We don't know why it feels right, but it just does.

First of all, I would never suggest (nor think) that you suffer from some sort of disorder. We've always been friendly 'foes', and my only target are your ideas/posts. Not ever you. In the interests of clarity, let me explain further.

Cognitive dissonance is not a disorder. It's a mental process all humans go through, including both me and you. It's the psychological name for the process you are describing. In simple terms, when you have two pieces of information which don't sit right together, cognitive dissonance is a force for change. It's the nagging in your mind that occurs until you come up with a worldview that comfortably fits those pieces of information together.

There's more to it, but here's a fairly straight forward page with some examples, including the one above;
Cognitive Dissonance made easy.

So what I meant was that I think you work through something until the information you have got sits comfortably with the worldview you have. This wasn't meant as a put-down at all. There are too many people in the world who take shortcuts when dealing with cognitive dissonance, and end up with pretty weak justifications for their belief and behaviours. I don't see you in that way, based on your posts here.

However, dealing with cognitive dissonance in the way you're describing is somewhat akin to finding a 'common sense' view of the world. That was my point. As an example of the problems this could cause, I would submit Copernicus, and his 'discovery' (or rediscovery, or however you want to term it) of heliocentricity.

Even a child knew that the sun rose in the east and set in the west. Except that it didn't. The entire earth span as it rotated the sun. Whilst it seems excessive now, this was actually seen as blasphemy at the time. Science impinging on the realm of the Bible.

A couple of translated quotes attributed to Copernicus seem relevant here;

Nor do I doubt that skilled and scholarly mathematicians will agree with me if, what philosophy requires from the beginning, they will examine and judge, not casually but deeply, what I have gathered together in this book to prove these things. ...Mathematics is written for mathematicians, to whom these my labours, if I am not mistaken, will appear to contribute something. ...What... I may have achieved in this, I leave to the decision of your Holiness especially, and to all other learned mathematicians. ...If perchance there should be foolish speakers who, together with those ignorant of all mathematics, will take it upon themselves to decide concerning these things, and because of some place in the Scriptures wickedly distorted to their purpose, should dare to assail this my work, they are of no importance to me, to such an extent do I despise their judgment as rash.

• Preface Letter to Pope Paul III as quoted by Edwin Arthur Burtt in The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science (1925)

For I am not so enamored of my own opinions that I disregard what others may think of them. I am aware that a philosopher's ideas are not subject to the judgment of ordinary persons, because it is his endeavor to seek the truth in all things, to the extent permitted to human reason by God. Yet I hold that completely erroneous views should be shunned. Those who know that the consensus of many centuries has sanctioned the conception that the earth remains at rest in the middle of the heaven as its center would, I reflected, regard it as an insane pronouncement if I made the opposite assertion that the earth moves.

• Preface to On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres by Copernicus

I'm unsure how you regard Copernicus, but I offer him only as a clear example that common sense is not always right, and that proof does not always subscribe to the KISS principle.

 

[siti]

The herbal remedies that exist in nature have largely been lost due to medical science introducing their artificial chemically based drugs. These herbs are completely compatible with our bodies.

That's just wrong Deeje - a huge range of drugs are either directly derived from plants or synthesized analogues of plant-derived chemicals that are produced in sufficient abundance to rely solely on natural sources. There are hundreds of plant derived drugs in use in medicine and most of them are used to treat ailments that are related to their original 'ethnopharmacological' uses that tipped off researchers to investigate them in the first place. This knowledge has not been lost at all, except to those who choose to disregard the scientific understanding that we now have about these remedies work - or, some cases, don't.

 

[Deeje]

That's just wrong Deeje - a huge range of drugs are either directly derived from plants or synthesized analogues of plant-derived chemicals that are produced in sufficient abundance to rely solely on natural sources. There are hundreds of plant derived drugs in use in medicine and most of them are used to treat ailments that are related to their original 'ethnopharmacological' uses that tipped off researchers to investigate them in the first place.

Surely you know how the patent system works in the land of capitalism?
You can 'know' of natural plants that have curative properties, but you can't patent them. Unless you modify or synthesize them in some way, you can't 'own' them or claim to have 'invented' them. Once you produce something artificial (i.e. not the original composition of the plant) you can apply for a patent and once that is granted...you can own it. When you own it, you can then charge exorbitant amounts of money for it regardless of how cheap it is to produce.

This is the base of the current medical system. It knows its pharmacology; it knows a little about "natural" whole plant medicine but treats it as quackery. Once you remove components from the whole plant that all work in conjunction with one another, you destroy its healing properties. It might work to a small extent, but nothing like the plant that the Creator put here for the benefit of living things. Do you understand what you are defending? Its an extremely corrupt system, like all the rest. Follow the money trail.

This knowledge has not been lost at all, except to those who choose to disregard the scientific understanding that we now have about these remedies work - or, some cases, don't.

That "scientific understanding" is not as magnanimous as you think it is. It is designed to make big corporations rich, not to cure anyone of any disease. There is no money in "cures"...only in "treatments" which are little more than things that are designed to mask symptoms....giving the impression that it is working.

The endless lists of harmful 'side effects' for all these artificial substances that humans swallow by the ton each year, means that they can sell more overpriced drugs to offset the poison that they have already given you. A "side effect" is your body's way of objecting to something that is causing it damage.

Time to wake up to who is running this show....

 

[siti]

Do you understand what you are defending? Its an extremely corrupt system, like all the rest. Follow the money trail.

I do - and religion is part of it in my opinion - I know you agree with that with one exception - your religion - but it is not science that is guilty of profiteering from human suffering - it is - as you suggest - the capitalist system with its religious, political and military paramours - the wild beast with the false prophet, the Kings of the earth and the military commanders...but they're all human agencies - "a man's number". We have the power to fix it but we choose to sit idly by and talk about regretting our poor, orphaned condition instead of getting off our behinds and putting the reality into practice...

I don't suffer ill health - not a single cold or flu episode in the last 5 years - and I'm 55 this year and as strong as most of my work colleagues twenty years my junior. How do I do it? I eat green leaves and fresh fruits and vegetables - quite a lot from our own garden - drink plenty of clean water and water fast for 3 days every couple of months or so (no special dates or schedule for this just when it feels right. I don't need remedies because I get a steady supply of essential vitamins, minerals and phytochemicals from my diet and my immune system gets a boost from that and from my periodic fasting. And how did I learn this? not from the medical profession and certainly not from any religious group - no, I Iearned it from reading about the science behind human health and nutrition. They can't patent healthy living, but they can blind you with science-denial and baffle you with religious bull****.

So I agree - it is indeed time to wake and see who's running the show. Its us - and we are making a right pig's ear of it.

 

[Deeje]

Agreed. It's why I post crime statistics, when you talk about the world going to hell, and remind you about design faults in nature when you offer up the perfection of nature as proof of God. Just trying to help.

I look at crime stats and wonder how people think that things are getting better? We have less excuse now for barbarity, surely?
When we see road rage incidents and gate crashed parties where mobs of bored kids looking for trouble trash houses and maim others just for something to do, is that an improvement?

The drug problem fuels crime like nothing else.....mental illness causes all manner of violent incidents and the hospitals can barely cope on a weekend due to alcohol fueled brawls. Where do the crime stats come into play here? Do we really see an improvement in our standard of living along with an increase in education standards and understanding of human behavior? Or is it the education standards that are letting down our youth?

You do, perhaps, see my point though. If I ask a young Christian about the trinity, and they can't provide a simple response, then atheism MUST be true, no? I mean, it's a simple question.

I guess that is where we see a huge difference between our own kids and those raised in Christendom. We teach reasons, not just doctrines. We hope that those reasons give them a better platform to make informed decisions when they are of age to decide their future for themselves. We encourage them spiritually, but we cannot force them to take any particular course...they must decide that for themselves.

There have been plenty of influential Christian scientists. I'm sure they'd be shocked to realise science has disproven God.

Science cannot disprove God. All they can do is suggest reasons for why they don't believe he exists. They cannot close a door that they can't find, or have never opened.

Pretty interested in your further thoughts on this, for obvious reasons.

If I paid a fortune for something that was not the personal work of the artist, I would feel ripped off...wouldn't you?

OTOH, if someone invented a machine that produced things that were brilliantly designed, then I would applaud the inventor and creator of that machine. I see snowflakes that way.

How does science explain the symmetry? Obviously God did not form every snowflake, but his design is evident in every one of them .He obviously designed the process.
How long did it take humans to even discover that there were amazing patterns in snowflakes and that they are all different? Why are they not all the same if they are formed through the same process?

It's cheap to simply disparage all in a manner that suits your argument. At the same time, if you didn't experience good teachers, I'm sorry.

Speaking generally, my criticism does not disparage the good teachers, (of which no doubt, there are many.) Its the damage done by the bad ones that lingers. Teaching is an inborn gift, and not everyone has it.
I have memories of bad teachers and good ones, but the good ones were rare. The ones that stick in my mind were not the ones who treated everyone's work as wonderful...10 out of 10! The ones that made us work for the grade and the praise gave us incentive to do better and to put pressure on ourselves...to challenge our own PB. If I got 7 out of 10 from one of those I was chuffed.
10 out of 10 felt like nothing....as if the teacher didn't even bother to look at our work and grade the effort.

I pulled my son out of a year 10 maths class because the brilliant mathematician who was the teacher was hopeless at conveying concepts. He just confused the kids and their grades crashed as a result. He was the one who suggested that my son should do advanced maths because he had potential based on his grades thus far. Had I not put him in another class he would have flunked altogether.

Like when I took my children to a Buddhist temple 2 months ago? Or spent an hour (okay, more like 40 minutes) teaching my youngest daughter about some different concepts of God today, since she's interested? Or should I only teach them about the Bible?

Obviously, I never include outstanding fathers and teachers such as yourself....so you are not among those whom I addressed.

There is a concept called 'lies to children'.

You mean like Santa Claus or the tooth fairy?

it's about dumbing things down to the point that they're actually not particularly accurate in order to give someone 'understanding' of them. Ask any sixth grader to explain a rainbow, and they'll tell you something, but it won't actually be accurate. Ask them to explain the colour blue, and that will apply, to an even higher degree, most likely. Perhaps there are times people are simply trying to provide as much information as they know, and not trying to dumb things down?

Regardless of the age of the child, a good teacher should be able to convey complex subjects in a simple way.

What causes rainbows for example?....sunlight passing through raindrops. You always need sunshine and rain to be happening together at the same time. Light has wavelengths and each one is a different color. The longest ones are blues and the shortest ones are reds.....the others are in between. That should be enough for any young school age child to understand.

Dumbing things down doesn't have to be lies. Simplification is the mark of a good teacher.

You can explain about the tricks your eyes can play on you, but its a good trick.....making the ocean and the sky appear to be beautiful shades of blue, when in fact water is colorless and the 'sky' is black beyond our atmosphere. Science is fun when it is not over-complicated.

 

[Deeje]

Cognitive dissonance is not a disorder. It's a mental process all humans go through, including both me and you. It's the psychological name for the process you are describing. In simple terms, when you have two pieces of information which don't sit right together, cognitive dissonance is a force for change. It's the nagging in your mind that occurs until you come up with a worldview that comfortably fits those pieces of information together.

There's more to it, but here's a fairly straight forward page with some examples, including the one above;
Cognitive Dissonance made easy.

Perhaps I was not clear enough.....I was not denying cognitive dissonance per se, but thinking more about the way some people justify the most ridiculous ideas to accommodate their belief system. e.g. those who hold to the YE kind of Creationism will try to fit dinosaurs onto Noah's ark. It is clear from scientific investigation that no 'dinosaurs' existed at the time when humans came on the scene. That kind of CD is a disorder IMO.

I was more thinking along the lines you have alluded to here....

So what I meant was that I think you work through something until the information you have got sits comfortably with the worldview you have. . . .There are too many people in the world who take shortcuts when dealing with cognitive dissonance, and end up with pretty weak justifications for their belief and behaviors. I don't see you in that way, based on your posts here.

Even a child knew that the sun rose in the east and set in the west. Except that it didn't. The entire earth span as it rotated the sun. Whilst it seems excessive now, this was actually seen as blasphemy at the time. Science impinging on the realm of the Bible.

This is where science and religion part company. The "Church" was the authority (in its own eyes) on all matters, whether that be political, scientific or religious....she set herself up as the arbiter of what was acceptable to herself and by extension, to God. That was her delusion.

We (JW's) hold the view that science has an important place when it comes to things that can be proven...this is' true science' to us, and we benefit immensely from its findings and research. OTOH, we have the theoretical sciences that rely, not on real "evidence" but on 'suggestion' based on what they 'think' they know at any given time. That could change tomorrow, however. Since it has no real foundation, I view it something like a house of cards.....a decent gust of an ill wind and the whole thing can come crashing down.

I accept what science can prove but when it comes to evolution, there is nothing to substantiate it apart from what scientists "believe" to be true.
What they "believe" and what I "believe" are two completely different things. We simply have two belief systems that clash and we are told that we must subscribe to one or the other. Finding something in the middle that is more balanced is where I find myself with my brotherhood. I don't have to choose one extreme or the other, but I can see where both apply without having to discard either one entirely. I am comfortable there.

I'm unsure how you regard Copernicus, but I offer him only as a clear example that common sense is not always right, and that proof does not always subscribe to the KISS principle.

Copernicus was a man before his time and his findings were very confronting to a church system (stuck in its own ideas) that had (a self imposed) authority even over kings. Nothing happened quickly, but his findings were eventually impossible for them to ignore.

When Galileo got in on the act, then it was harder for the church to stand its ground. Galileo invented his own telescope and could prove his findings in a physical way, unlike Copernicus who had only calculations to back up his findings.
Lecture 16: The Starry Messenger

We owe these men a debt of gratitude for not allowing the church to call the shots when they had proof for their findings. Science and God never clashed....it was the church and science that had the problem.

God is a champion of truth IMO....but truth all too often gets obscured by too much conflicting information.....this is why KISS works. I can KISS God with wonderful results.

 

[Deeje]

I do - and religion is part of it in my opinion - I know you agree with that with one exception - your religion - but it is not science that is guilty of profiteering from human suffering - it is - as you suggest - the capitalist system with its religious, political and military paramours - the wild beast with the false prophet, the Kings of the earth and the military commanders...but they're all human agencies - "a man's number". We have the power to fix it but we choose to sit idly by and talk about regretting our poor, orphaned condition instead of getting off our behinds and putting the reality into practice...

Actually we don't have the power or the will to fix any of this world's problems. You know why. Our own imperfection coupled with an unseen power behind all of it, pulling the strings...he will never allow humans to fix anything. The more people he can pull away from God, the more he has in his workforce to counter any kind of solutions being implemented. He knows his fate and as this system of things nears its conclusion, he has intensified his efforts. He used to be subtle, but now he has pulled out all the stops. We are now reaching a similar moral situation to what occurred in Sodom and Gomorrah. Wickedness is as rampant as what it was in Noah's day...each of those used in the Bible as an example of things to come. (2 Peter 2:5-10)

I don't suffer ill health - not a single cold or flu episode in the last 5 years - and I'm 55 this year and as strong as most of my work colleagues twenty years my junior. How do I do it? I eat green leaves and fresh fruits and vegetables - quite a lot from our own garden - drink plenty of clean water and water fast for 3 days every couple of months or so (no special dates or schedule for this just when it feels right. I don't need remedies because I get a steady supply of essential vitamins, minerals and phytochemicals from my diet and my immune system gets a boost from that and from my periodic fasting. And how did I learn this? not from the medical profession and certainly not from any religious group - no, I Iearned it from reading about the science behind human health and nutrition. They can't patent healthy living, but they can blind you with science-denial and baffle you with religious bull****.

So you are a living example of why we should never rely on man to fix our health problems. If you look at how Israel farmed their land to produce their food with nothing artificial, it isn't difficult to see why they enjoyed relatively good health. Their hygiene laws prevented the transmission of many communicable diseases and their water was unpolluted with the chemicals we see today in tap water. Add to that the poorer countries who have no clean water at all and who have no means to grow food. Poverty exists even in affluent countries.

The "science" behind human health and nutrition was first instituted by God who gave humans a perfect start as fruitarians. The water they drank was crystal clear and the air they breathed was unpolluted. They became farmers and ate "bread" only after their eviction from the garden.

So I agree - it is indeed time to wake and see who's running the show. Its us - and we are making a right pig's ear of it.

Do you see man equipped to deal with the magnitude of the problem? Every single thing that sustains life on this planet is contaminated by man's greed and self-centered stupidity. The air is polluted, the water and even the rain is polluted, the soil in which our food is grown is contaminated with poisons and is deficient in essential minerals. How does man solve the problem...when man IS the problem?

Are you inspired to believe that someone will come along any time soon to rescue this planet from the ones who are ruining it?.....if God doesn't step in and set things straight very soon, who else is equipped to handle the extent of the problems? We have to ask if its already too late?

What is the solution without God? Governments cannot see a way to fix anything.....but the one thing they haven't tried is the one foretold in the Bible.....a One World Government that will promise "peace and security", but will deliver just the opposite.

We are waiting for the institution of this governmental solution and the inevitable outbreak of the "great tribulation" that will follow.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Hmmm...it is challenging to discuss abstracts with you, ya know? You tend to circle back around to the same points you're making, regardless of the points raised in response. It's equal parts funny and frustrating to me. I'm going to try and avoid that in this case, so I might spend part of this reiterating what my points were, rather than discussing issues not directly related to your original OP. You and I have rambling discussions I generally enjoy, but maybe a change of tact will help?

I look at crime stats and wonder how people think that things are getting better? We have less excuse now for barbarity, surely?
When we see road rage incidents and gate crashed parties where mobs of bored kids looking for trouble trash houses and maim others just for something to do, is that an improvement?

The drug problem fuels crime like nothing else.....mental illness causes all manner of violent incidents and the hospitals can barely cope on a weekend due to alcohol fueled brawls. Where do the crime stats come into play here? Do we really see an improvement in our standard of living along with an increase in education standards and understanding of human behavior? Or is it the education standards that are letting down our youth?

My point was entirely tongue in cheek. In seriousness, I agree that we should be open to new information, and to challenging our existing view of the world.

I guess that is where we see a huge difference between our own kids and those raised in Christendom. We teach reasons, not just doctrines. We hope that those reasons give them a better platform to make informed decisions when they are of age to decide their future for themselves. We encourage them spiritually, but we cannot force them to take any particular course...they must decide that for themselves.

Because all 'Christians' do not hold to the same dogma, right? They are not a single homogeneous group. Neither are atheists, despite how some (even atheists) present them. Still, people will cherry pick a group of atheists and use them as an example of atheists. What would happen if I could pick a group of 'Christians' an use them as an example of Christians generally? Rubbish, right? Like if I asked Christians about the trinity, they couldn't describe it, and I then made the leap that 'Christians can't even describe the Trinity', without differentiation of JWs from Catholics, for example. 'Atheist' is a massive umbrella term, just as Christian is.

Science cannot disprove God. All they can do is suggest reasons for why they don't believe he exists. They cannot close a door that they can't find, or have never opened.

Kinda. Based on my beliefs, I agree, science cannot disprove God. Full stop. It's pretty simple (to me).

If I paid a fortune for something that was not the personal work of the artist, I would feel ripped off...wouldn't you?

If you paid a fortune for a Masters work, and were unaware that the paintings were commonly (almost always) collaborative works, I'd say more fool you. But I research a computer purchase. I'd sure as heck be researching an expensive painting.
My point, smoothly dodged by you, is that the exact example you offered to show that a painting is the work of a (single) Master is actually proof of EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. I still can't see how Ray wasn't arguing for polytheism. After all, he's a Trinitarian YEC. Even you might see that as polytheistic, right?

How does science explain the symmetry?

Is that you Ray? Are you still arguing that human ignorance proves God?
If you're genuinely interested, then here is a link;
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/publist/PWJan08libbrecht-plus-cover.pdf

If you're instead suggesting that my inability to reduce this information to 2 sentences proves God, then just stick to abiogenesis. I know bugger all about that too, and it's more impressive sounding than snowflakes.

Obviously God did not form every snowflake, but his design is evident in every one of them .He obviously designed the process.
How long did it take humans to even discover that there were amazing patterns in snowflakes and that they are all different? Why are they not all the same if they are formed through the same process?

Why, because they are pretty?
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Use the ebola virus as an example of God's design power. It's much more impressive in terms of complexity.

Obviously, I never include outstanding fathers and teachers such as yourself....so you are not among those whom I addressed.

Heh....fair enough. In return I'll concede that my view of teaching is somewhat coloured by personal experience. I didn't see any leftie Godless conspiracy stomping on the opinions of conservatives, even though I'm Godless, and possibly a leftie.

You mean like Santa Claus or the tooth fairy?

Nope. Those are lies. 'Lies for children' is more a description for a specific manner of teaching, where the KISS principle is used, but the dumbing down of the information to an understandable level actually means it's technically inaccurate.
Lie-to-children - Wikipedia

If someone argues that the earth is flat, I might counter that it's round. But it's not. If someone argues that the earth is the centre of the universe, I might argue that the sun is the centre of the universe. But it's not. If someone argues that the domestic banana is an example of God's design, then I might wish you had to have a licence before driving You Tube.

Regardless of the age of the child, a good teacher should be able to convey complex subjects in a simple way.

I can agree to that easily, and I know I was a good teacher. I do what you're talking about every day in my current job. But still, I am self aware and honest enough with myself to know I can't reduce my knowledge in a particular area to a couple of sentences and still hold any meaningful information. Anyone with some understanding could poke holes in my dumbed down response. Christians and the Trinity wasn't an example aimed at JWs, but perhaps the method for spreading the message of the JWs could be. It's a more controlled message than most religions. Why?

What causes rainbows for example?....sunlight passing through raindrops. You always need sunshine and rain to be happening together at the same time.

You just explained colour, to a degree, although the colours of a rainbow can be interpreted differently by different people. But you didn't explain the shape.
I don't say that because I care, merely as a demonstration of Ray's technique. It's really pretty simple. Kids 'know' about rainbows, and can explain them in 2 sentences. But then I can ask how the shape is arrived at. Most of them stammer some vague response, I simply edit out the 1 in 30 who know something about it, and hey presto. I have a list of kids who claim to know about rainbows and come off as confused.

Dumbing things down doesn't have to be lies. Simplification is the mark of a good teacher.

Of course. 'Lies to children' is a somewhat controversial way of terming this process. Just think of it this way. I explain a complex process to you in a simplified way, and you get some understanding. Then someone with more understanding can EASILY ask you a single question, and punch a whole in the simplified explanation you already have.

You can explain about the tricks your eyes can play on you, but its a good trick.....making the ocean and the sky appear to be beautiful shades of blue, when in fact water is colorless and the 'sky' is black beyond our atmosphere.

Sure. The blind spot we all have is also awesome, right?

Science is fun when it is not over-complicated.

I don't think I'm complicating anything, but let me know if I seem to be. It's not my intent.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Perhaps I was not clear enough.....I was not denying cognitive dissonance per se, but thinking more about the way some people justify the most ridiculous ideas to accommodate their belief system. e.g. those who hold to the YE kind of Creationism will try to fit dinosaurs onto Noah's ark. It is clear from scientific investigation that no 'dinosaurs' existed at the time when humans came on the scene. That kind of CD is a disorder IMO.

Like Ray. He's a YE. Still confused why you used him in your OP, instead of just asking your questions directly, to be honest.

This is where science and religion part company. The "Church" was the authority (in its own eyes) on all matters, whether that be political, scientific or religious....she set herself up as the arbiter of what was acceptable to herself and by extension, to God. That was her delusion.

We (JW's) hold the view that science has an important place when it comes to things that can be proven...this is' true science' to us, and we benefit immensely from its findings and research. OTOH, we have the theoretical sciences that rely, not on real "evidence" but on 'suggestion' based on what they 'think' they know at any given time. That could change tomorrow, however. Since it has no real foundation, I view it something like a house of cards.....a decent gust of an ill wind and the whole thing can come crashing down.

I accept what science can prove but when it comes to evolution, there is nothing to substantiate it apart from what scientists "believe" to be true.
What they "believe" and what I "believe" are two completely different things. We simply have two belief systems that clash and we are told that we must subscribe to one or the other. Finding something in the middle that is more balanced is where I find myself with my brotherhood. I don't have to choose one extreme or the other, but I can see where both apply without having to discard either one entirely. I am comfortable there.

Fair enough. I very rarely would bother questioning a creationist or a proponent of some version of created evolution. I have no reason to, unless they're trying to drive science classes in schools along those paths. Certain types of creationist beliefs (YE would be an example) simply fly in the face of too much clear evidence for me to not question them. Still, if I can explain it this way, science has a better chance of 'guessing' right than people's religious wishes. I agree that science could be completely wrong, and tomorrow our idea's can change dramatically. But to me, science is the very methodology by which existing scientific knowledge would be discarded...and replaced.

Copernicus was a man before his time and his findings were very confronting to a church system (stuck in its own ideas) that had (a self imposed) authority even over kings. Nothing happened quickly, but his findings were eventually impossible for them to ignore.

When Galileo got in on the act, then it was harder for the church to stand its ground. Galileo invented his own telescope and could prove his findings in a physical way, unlike Copernicus who had only calculations to back up his findings.
Lecture 16: The Starry Messenger

We owe these men a debt of gratitude for not allowing the church to call the shots when they had proof for their findings. Science and God never clashed....it was the church and science that had the problem.

God is a champion of truth IMO....but truth all too often gets obscured by too much conflicting information.....this is why KISS works. I can KISS God with wonderful results.

Yeah, but I chose those 2 quotes from Copernicus VERY carefully. The conflict between knowledge and the church is one thing, but the crux of my point was that Copernicus' findings were actually VERY theoretical and difficult for a layman to understand initially. They were mathematical in nature. KISS did not work. Not until later, when other inventions (such as the telescope) could provide simpler, non-theoretical methods for confirming theoretical mathematics.

KISS is all well and good, but heliocentricity is a perfect example of something that could not originally be handled in a KISS manner. That doesn't mean everything complex is correct. But it sure as heck proves it's not always wrong.

 

[siti]

We are waiting

Exactly! And that's the problem - everyone is 'waiting' for the solution. The power is in our hands. You don't have to buy the contaminated food and water etc. that you so despise. You don't have to contribute to humanity's carbon footprint by driving to work, or turning on the lights, using a refrigerator to store food and a washing machine and detergents to decontaminate your clothes while fouling the water and the soil around us. Nobody is forced to do any of these things - but we continue to do so - and wait for God to fix it for us. And at the same time we blame the "greedy" capitalists - but they're only selling what people are happy to buy at a price that people are willing to pay. God has nothing to do with that and neither does Satan - its our choice.

 

[Deeje]

Hmmm...it is challenging to discuss abstracts with you, ya know?

Maybe you're not dumbing it down enough?

You and I have rambling discussions I generally enjoy, but maybe a change of tact will help?

That's optimistic.

Because all 'Christians' do not hold to the same dogma, right? They are not a single homogeneous group. Neither are atheists, despite how some (even atheists) present them.

Yes, I know. All tarred with the one brush. Not good.

'Atheist' is a massive umbrella term, just as Christian is.

I almost hate to use the term Christian because of what it has come to mean in today's world. Nothing close to what Jesus started. I just naturally think of atheists as God deniers...but I guess you have different beliefs too. Does that mean you have denominations with no names?

If you paid a fortune for a Masters work, and were unaware that the paintings were commonly (almost always) collaborative works, I'd say more fool you.

Lucky I'm poor then. No major works of art on my wish list.

I still can't see how Ray wasn't arguing for polytheism. After all, he's a Trinitarian YEC. Even you might see that as polytheistic, right?

YEC is a little pathetic IMV. There is nothing in the Bible to indicate that the universe and everything in it was poofed into existence in 7 literal days. I don't subscribe to the "Big Magician in the sky" thing.

As for the trinity....? If we are made in God's image, then we should all have multiple personality disorder....and it would be normal. Imagine.....

Is that you Ray? Are you still arguing that human ignorance proves God?
If you're genuinely interested, then here is a link;
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/publist/PWJan08libbrecht-plus-cover.pdf

I love the way that article finishes up....
"However, beyond the intrinsic scientific questions, beyond the practical applications of crystal growth, and beyond the meteorological significance of atmospheric ice, we who ponder snowflakes are motivated by a simple and essential desire to comprehend the natural world around us. These marvellous ice sculptures, so elaborate and beautiful, simply fall from the sky in great abundance. We ought to understand how they are created."

Must be frustrating....such a simple thing but incredibly hard to understand or to explain how it all happens.

Use the ebola virus as an example of God's design power. It's much more impressive in terms of complexity.

Ebola wasn't first described till 1976, so I wonder how many mutations and adaptations it underwent before being named Ebola? Perhaps it started out quite innocuously?
Everything has its place in the scheme of things, so I guess we will all find out about it one day.

If our immune systems worked as they should, we wouldn't contract these viruses in the first place. Hang on....was that CD?

You just explained colour, to a degree, although the colours of a rainbow can be interpreted differently by different people. But you didn't explain the shape.
I don't say that because I care, merely as a demonstration of Ray's technique. It's really pretty simple. Kids 'know' about rainbows, and can explain them in 2 sentences. But then I can ask how the shape is arrived at. Most of them stammer some vague response, I simply edit out the 1 in 30 who know something about it, and hey presto. I have a list of kids who claim to know about rainbows and come off as confused.

When I explain the shape and size of a rainbow to kids I tell them to look at how big it is and then imagine, since the sun creates it...that is how big the sun is even though its so far away. They seem to get it.

Just think of it this way. I explain a complex process to you in a simplified way, and you get some understanding. Then someone with more understanding can EASILY ask you a single question, and punch a whole in the simplified explanation you already have.

I'll pretend that a teacher didn't just say "whole" instead of "hole".....

But if you create a simple platform first, then others can add to the construction over time until you build a solid concept. The details will all come later.

Sure. The blind spot we all have is also awesome, right?

I just love optical illusions! This is one of my favorites....stare at the +